Selling Mrs Consumer

Christine Frederick realized that women were BETTER CONSUMERS than men; because women enjoy advertising more than men, they are instinctively drawn to novelty, and they heavily influence men’s decision-making. Therefore advertising should be skewed towards women. Men will follow.

Selling Mrs. Consumer was Christine Frederick’s magnum opus after 10+ years of work conducting consumer research about the average US woman.

In the book, Frederick paints a picture of the average American woman (Mrs. Consumer) in 1929. She also points out flaws of contemporary advertising and describes what advertising towards women SHOULD look like.

[Translation: She found a bunch of actionable ways to sell more stuff to women.]

Almost no one today knows who Christine Frederick is, but her impact on advertising, marketing, capitalism and consumerism is unmistakable.

She was one of the first–if not THE first–to understand (and write about) the huge untapped potential represented by women in a consumer society. She also pointed out little-known contemporary trends such as that:

The husband may earn the money, but it is generally Mrs. Consumer who spends it.

Mrs. Consumer enjoys advertising in women’s magazines because it satisfies her curiosity of keeping up with recent trends (why women read Elle magazine or airline magazines, when both contain 10 % content and 90 % ads).

Even if the husband likes a car he will not buy it unless Mrs. Consumer also likes it (when this insight caught on, car manufacturers started making more colorful models and advertised them in women’s magazines, so that when men who took their wives shopping, the wife would recognize the car and want him to buy it).

We women don’t consciously follow advertising in order to make great basic changes. We think in short cycles, not long cycles; of today rather than of tomorrow. . . The object of every consumer, is to get the greatest value for my money with the least expenditure of time and effort.

Today’s female ads are simpler and less mentally straining. No need to read.

Frederick believed women had adapted themselves to advertising in a different way than men:

This attitude of ours toward advertising is unconscious. We [women] inhale advertising as we breathe in air–and exhale unconsciously that part of it which is without interest. . .

We women simply adapt ourselves to an advertising age as men adapt themselves to a machine age.

And she thought advertising was character-building in a positive way:

Not only has it [advertising] by force of example made a bath in a porcelain tub and a brushing of our teeth national, daily rites, but it is performing the task that the churches have long given up–it is strengthening our characters. I am really serious. Advertising is truly forcing us to develop strength of will to resist its alluring temptations to buy articles which we do not need.

Christine Frederick and Progressive Obsolescence

Her second biggest impact on modern consumer culture was the idea of progressive obsolescence:

What is “progressive obsolescence?” It is a somewhat pompous phrase, let us take it apart. These are its characteristics:

(1) A state of mind which is highly suggestible and open; eager and willing to take hold of anything new either in the shape of a new invention or new designs or styles or ways of living.

(2) A readiness to “scrap” or lay aside an article before its natural life or usefulness is completed, in order to make way for the newer and better thing.

(3) A willingness to apply a very large share of one’s income, even if it pinches savings, to the acquisition of new goods or services or way of living.

Basically, buy stuff even if you don’t need it.

Frederick believed that the reason why the U.S had prospered so quickly relative to other countries was because its citizens practiced progressive obsolescence to a higher extent. The American family may buy and sell several houses, while, for example, the British family typically stays in the house it inherits from past generations.

We have more because we spend more–this is our American Paradox.

The consumer habits of the American and the British contrast in more categories than just buying houses. Americans buy low quality products often, Europeans buy seldom, but will buy quality products that LAST.

Or well, they did 80 years ago. . .

Today, the progressive obsolescence of the U.S is a global phenomenon.

During 1910-40(ish), most companies sold products based on NEED only (Bernays’s idea of “old salesmanship”). If you already had a toy in working condition you didn’t need a new one.

Today, companies sell products based on desires and aspirations. You’re TRAINED–(conditioned by consumer society)–to think that you NEED the new product. Even when you already have (an “old”) model that works.

Frederick believed that progressive obsolescence was not only good for the progress of the nation, but also as a “philosophy” of happiness (for women):

. . . inan industrial era Mrs. Consumer is happiest and best served if she consumes goods at the same approximate rate of change and improvement that science and art and machinery can make possible.

And she reasoned that:

if designers and weavers and inventors of rapid machinery make it possible to choose a new pattern of necktie or dress every few weeks, and there is human pleasure in wearing them, why be an old frump and cling to an old necktie or old dress until it wears through?

The 3 Phases of Progressive Obsolescence

Frederick described 3 phases of progressive obsolescence, in order of severity:

1) Keeping up with technical and scientific advance

Example: buying a new radio because its sound quality has improved thanks to some technical innovation.

2) The practical or coordinative phase

Example: buying a new radio at the same time you buy a new desk or a new telephone. Convenience plays a part in the decision (like buying in bulk).

3) The aesthetic phase

Example: buying a new radio just because it looks good, fits the house decor, or because it is a “popular” thing to do (like Bernays’s piano room).

Big corporations came to sympathize with Frederick’s “philosophy of obsolescence”. But they were too impatient to wait for consumers to get on-board with it, so they took it upon themselves to speed things up.

They created PLANNED obsolescence. . .

After WW2 was over, the winning countries kept their industrial plants while the losing countries (whose factories and product equipment got destroyed) had to build new ones .

Though expensive, this turned out to be a good thing for the losing countries, over the long-term.

Countries like Germany, Italy and Japan started using new and improved industrial technology whereas the U.S kept using its OLD industrial plants (change only happens when it MUSThappen).

That was the beginning of the end for the U.S.A.’s prestige as the world’s technological leader. The U.S.A. post-World War II cars were inherently seven years passe in contrast to the smaller, faster foreign cars. The “Big Three”American auto producers undertook to manufacture while keeping the foreign cars off the market and while they themselves exploited America’s market need for a geographically expanding economy’s transportation.

Not only did these large car companies keep superior cars out of the U.S, they also started using methods of planned obsolescence.

They intentionally created cars with inferior parts that broke down after a predetermined period of time.

It was not until the late 60s and 70s, when higher quality foreign cars finally entered the U.S market, that American car companies were FORCED to start creating higher quality automobiles.

Forced by its competition.

You and I did not suffer the direct impact of this as we were not American car prospects during the 60s or 70s. But the METHODS behind what went down are still around in modern consumer society.

Only today they are put to use in more subtle and sophisticated ways.

If a big company can find some way of forcing you to buy their newest product model, even when you have the second newest model already, they will take it (as long as they are in a position to get away with it).

The movie Fight Club is arguably one of the best-known examples of planned obsolescence in popular culture. Maybe you know some other examples?

Progressive Obsolescence Today

Conditioning its population for progressive obsolescence may have been a serious prerogative for the U.S in keeping its economy alive during the Great Depression. But what about today?

Today, progressive obsolescence is so deeply ingrained into popular culture that it cannot be gotten rid of, like Edward Bernays’s fluoridation of the public drinking water.

Progressive obsolescence is also one of the biggest forces of resistance against environmentalism.

Christine Frederick would be proud to see the hordes of shopaholic women that ROMP around the average mall.

Although women make for the best consumers, as they have an instinctual “love for change,” and therefore are most receptive to different methods of progressive obsolescence. . .

. . . Modern MEN around the world are following suit at an alarming pace.

“Men” all around the world worry whether they will look “respectable enough” if they do not wear a designer watch, or have a big TV in their living room.

They are confused consumers.

In 1970, 3% of Americans considered owning a second TV as a necessity. In 2000, the corresponding number had grown to 75%!

This doesn’t necessarily mean that people have gotten 20 times as materialistic, but it’s tempting to draw that conclusion.

The cultural (popular) consumption of trendy clothing and entertainment technology are examples of progressive obsolescence made possible due to the consenting masses of confused consumers–so that they can, temporarily, quell their misery and discontent through consumption.

Is Society Becoming More Feminine?

Many people think so.

I don’t disagree.

I believe the advertising industry and consumer culture has played a big part in making this happen.

All successful advertising campaigns are based on a fundamental truth.

Otherwise they would not result in long-term use (more on this in part 3).

One such truth is that women are better consumers than men are.

Women enjoy buying things more than men do.

Women are also “trend-setters” when it comes to consumption. They are more psychologically motivated than men are to become early adopters (and buy flashy new products).

Swedish women are known for their “love of change,” and for this reason many clothing companies start selling new clothing or fashion trinkets in Stockholm, hoping it will catch on and become a trend.

ADVERTISING–and therefore much of popular consumer culture–is skewed towards things that appeal to female psychology.

The problem is that the average man does not know this. He is socially conditioned to believe in fairy tales and magic pills; that he can become happy, popular, and successful by buying the “right” stuff.

Comments

The car in the image. It is from the beginning of the movie. The Narrator works for a company that “applies the formula”. The formula is that they will keep producing cars that break–on purpose–for as long as the money they make by people having to buy new cars, or repair existing cars, exceeds the money it costs them to pay for the people who die or get injured.

Planned obsolescence is causing the problem, and they’re not fixing it because they’re making money.

I think that the ascent of women in society has more to do with the concurrent ascent of consumerism that anything else. (As politically incorrect it sounds) I see deep reproductive biology roots in almost everything that you have written about the behavior or women and men as consumers. ¿Have you ever read something from Gad Saad? . Excellent article as always Ludvig.

I was going to quote you, but for some reason my copy/paste function is broken!

You say that *one* reason is because women buy homeopathy…..and that society doesn’t place responsibility on women but I wonder the following:

* Do you think things like homeopathy & aura reading make a big impact on the global economy? I am not trying to be smart with you, just curious.
* Don’t you think that society is placing an increasing amount of responsibility on women? As in that there is a positive trend??

I have no data on how much of the economy is comprised of fraud, and it might be difficult to define. I know people who have knowingly paid “real” money for strictly imaginary things in online games. Supposing such absurd expenditures to be a significant amount, an important question would be, “If this money weren’t spent on pure nonsense, what else would be done with it?” Forty dollars spent on a pack of Tarot cards is undoubtedly a better investment than forty dollars spent on heroin. It also represents less damage to the environment than forty dollars spent on food or electricity. It is probably *not* a safe assumption that the money would otherwise have been “saved” or “invested”.

Believers in homeopathy, etc., do afford a livelihood to charlatans, who support the economy by spending the money in turn on other things, /und so weiter/. This is “good” for the economy, if we suppose that the money might otherwise have been “saved” – and if all we really care about is keeping the current economic system functional. The same might be said of a great many consumer “goods” and “services” (arguably everything not necessary to sustain life).

One might, of course, question the virtue of an economic system that only works well given continuous exponential increases in the consumption of “goods” that include Tarot cards, Hummers, heroin, and weapons of mass destruction.

*

The social expectations of responsibility for women (in America, at least) did increase during the Seventies and Eighties as women entered the work force (and the professions) /en masse/. I believe that this trend has waned and perhaps reversed, though I may be conflating that tendency with the overall apathy of the so-called Generation Y.

Yes, society is becoming more feminized; yes, women are better consumers than men. One of the reasons for this is the same reason that 99% of believers in homeopathy, astrology, aura reading, etc. are female while 99% of computer programmers are male. Another reason is that our society does not (and never has) demanded much responsibility of women.

Excessive consumption is necessary for a capitalist economy to thrive, and planned obsolescence contributes to this, but this pattern (and hence capitalism itself) do not appear to be indefinitely sustainable.

I’d be cautious about using “facts” from Fuller. Foreign automakers did not intrude into the American market until the late Sixties, and when they did their products were definitely inferior – but cheaper. The quality of U.S. cars underwent a dramatic decline, not an increase, during the Seventies due to this competition as the Big Three tried to compete with Toyota and Volkswagen on a price basis.

Consumerism as femininity would never have crossed my mind but makes perfect sense. You can even feel it in trendy advertisements for “timeless” products.

Fredericks noted that it feels good to have the newest thing. As we have reached a point where the “new thing” comes faster and faster I wonder if this is collapsing in on itself. Not materially but psychologically. This may be what we’re seeing in all the “anti-” movements. Or “return to ____” movements.

This is a little amusing, check it out, under the heading “Cultural Influence” it says this:

“Hendricks has been credited as having an ideal shape for a woman.[12] British Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone praised Hendricks’ hourglass figure as an ideal shape for women, saying “Christina Hendricks is absolutely fabulous… We need more of these role models.”

Thank you Ludvig for another really interesting insightful article. I really do believe people use consumer culture as a way of distracting themselves from their misery, or lack of purpose. Same with media, drinking and theme parks. Its all just one giant distraction designed to keep you subdued. Great research, thanks again!

Good article with interesting info – shame about the supid title. Similar websites as this alienate female readers by pandering to misogynists, that’s their niche – I implore you not to travel that path – it’s tiresome and ultimately undermines your credibility.

Paula is right, be careful not to alienate 50% of the populace for no reason as it only hurts you and your message in the end. Misogyny is tiresome and it does undermine your credibility. Perhaps the key is to point out how the idea of progressive obsolence is influencing both men and women alike. I mean lets face it men get sucked into consumerism too…Maybe a more apt (but less controversial) title would be how progressive obsolence is wreaking havok on intelligent society.

Ludvig’s posts have never been misogynistic, but why would he (or any serious author) want to avoid offending people categorically? Only the most utterly bland and vapid material fails to offend large numbers of people. In the past, Ludvig has alienated the Internet’s vast semi-literate majority by writing long, thoughtful posts, and I very much hope that he continues to alienate them.

I have found Ludvigs articles really useful and plan use them for the basis of a teenagers class I teach. Although I read the title it’s strange how easily how the quotes get attributed to the author and not the person quoted and then to feel the whole article is mysogynist. Something I need to factor in when digesting material here and elsewhere. This is one of the big values of having comments and thoughtful contributors. I know my impression is also affected by the fact I stumbled upon you through an article in strong and determined ( which has some good content for a mother of two teenage boys whose father is absent). That site is specifically aimed at men and I wasn’t sure if this one was too (although the content has diverse appeal). This had made me reluctant to show my head over the parapet but Stephania and Paula’s contribution and your appreciative comments helped me overcome those fears. Paula makes a valid point and I suppose I wanted to post just to reinforce that it’s not an academic one. It’s not that I am afraid to post just don’t have the time to deal with any negativity afterwards. Looking forward to more post Ludvig

I can’t believe you say that the man earns the money and the wife spends it, this is not something I think is true at all.

Women work just as much as men and can make even more money than men, several of my girlfriends make more than many of their male colleagues. So this is wrong!!

And another of my girlfriends has a boyfriend who is very lazy and buys motorcycles and other things with their money and so the situation is nearly reversed from as it should be, and she is the earner!

Ludvig isn’t saying it, he is quoting Christine Frederick. And of course this is not true for every couple, but especially back in those days, it was a valid generalisation. Advertising and PR always works in generalisations or it wouldn’t be of any use at all.

Indians eat curry. That isn’t racist.It is a valid (as in useful) generalisation. This is similar.

Pamela: “And another of my girlfriends has a boyfriend who is very lazy and buys motorcycles and other things with their money and so the situation is nearly REVERSED FROM AS IT SHOULD BE, and she is the earner!” [emphasis added]

Here you have revealed your actual feeling, to wit that the man *should* be the earner and the woman *should* be the spender. This is a very common feeling, and for society overall men earn more than they spend and women spend more than they earn, though this is not nearly so universal as it once was.

Hahah – love the intro picture of that old ad (that hard-working wife is cute as hell!). I wonder if it sold a lot of vitamins?

Anyway, I have read a bunch about how “society is becoming more feminine” as you call it, but this is the first time I hear this explanation / angle on this whole deal. So that was nice.

Other than their “love of change” why do you think women are more motivated to buy new things or jump on trends? Im guessing there’s some interesting backstory or trivia or research or psychology behind this?

Interesting question. I have always accepted the fact a woman can spend a whole day in the shopping, while a man wants to get the fuck outta there as soon as possible. But I never questioned it.
Maybe Christine Frederick has an answer to this.

He said its because they’re more susceptible to novelty…I hate to say this but I think it might be linked to intelligence. Historically women were slower to come to higher education. If you’re smart you don’t get caught up in stupid gimmicks..

“Im guessing there’s some interesting backstory or trivia or research or psychology behind this?”

–Evolutionary studies. This may be the topic of a future article. . .
The implication is that women–in general–have more to gain in terms of status (especially in their own social hierarchy) and attractiveness by this type of behavior. You could say that it’s a way for them to signal to others that they “get it”.
Men do the same thing, but usually in very different ways.

Hi
just a fast question … how did you find about book Selling Mrs. Consumer? I have been looking for free books on advertising and marketing but i haven’t find much. and do you know any other free books on these subjects?
Thanks!

Hm… I’m afraid I don’t remember. It was about 3 months since I read it. I believe I found out about it randomly whilst reading a book in the same genre (a newer book). I always look up books mentioned inside books, so I never run out of “leads” to follow. And that’s how I stumbled over this one.

“And she thought advertising was character-building in a positive way:”

Haha it most certainly doesn’t seem to be the case today. It seems to be making women far more conscious of their looks (in a bad way), making them devalue their intellect and instead overly value their appearance. Of course feminists will argue this is the act of evil men. But no, it is a system feeding on itself over and over.

Also with respect to Fight Club. I saw the movie a few years ago. What was the aim of this “planned obsolescence”?

Lastly, I hope you received my latest email with my apology. It wasn’t my intention to be disrespectful.

I have not had the chance to read your latest mail read. But rest assured you have not offended me in any way.

Fight Club:
The narrator (played by Edward Norton) works for a car company. His job is apply “the formula” for car recalls. The recalls are a result of the progressive obsolescence applied by his car company, which make the car break after X years (hopefully motivating them to upgrade to the newest model). They obviously don’t want the recalls to happen, as they are dangerous–but they are so rare that the cost calculated by “the formula” make them financially feasible.

I remember that part, but didn’t catch the message the first time.
But doesn’t seem like programed obsolescence to me. It looks more like doing cars with “meh” quality and checking if its worth the money doing them accident proof or not.

I remember a website a few years ago that let you report failures of your car, with the hope of letting people know if a car’s design was defective or not.

Off topic: Being in youtube I found this:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jltnBOrCB7I
It’s about the Ford Pinto and being unsafe (with a rear hit you could get your gas tank blown up, and could be fixed with a plastic protection worth 12 U$D).

Sadly, the answer from Ford is true. People know that Ford Pinto is unsafer than the next, more expensive car in the line up. But they still but it. Maybe not to this extent, but they are aware that it could cost their lives. Still, they want to pay less. In this cases we need the government to set standards for the industry.

By the way, thanks Ludvig for putting my comment in the “Insightful Comment” section, in the right :) (I have just noticed it).

“But doesn’t seem like programed obsolescence to me. It looks more like doing cars with “meh” quality and checking if its worth the money doing them accident proof or not.”

–That is possible. It’s just a movie, after all. But it is an illustrative example. And, there are many other ways for progressive obsolescence to be put to use–other than manufacturing products that have to be replaced after X time. Companies in a position of monopoly/oligopoly–or in a cartel–can come up with inventive methods for doing this that would not be possible in “fair and competitive” markets.

This is beside the point of the article, but it is interesting food for thought.

” In this cases we need the government to set standards for the industry”

yes maybe in this case but not as a principle because then no innovation would be possible—resources must come from somewhere as Milton Friedman suggested.

Also…. it may not be “morally correct” to put a price tag on a life—but how would insurance companies and businesses like that be able to operate if they could not expertly (they are like the best in the world at it I think) price human lives through complicated formulas..??

Through that I read some other stuff, and found this for example…….which would support/fit in with what you proposed regarding the environmentalists.

“American society overemphasizes consumption, especially the quantity rather than the quality of what it consumes, and that it therefore sacrifices culture, prudence, and a proper concern for the future. He blames these distorted values on the business community, especially on the marketers and advertisers who have beguiled the public into accepting false standards”
==> VANCE PACKARD

Orchard, about that planned (style) obsolescence. I think, in reality, it is fault of the consumers, not the marketers / industry. People like to buy the latest car or the latest phone, in part, because they want to show off that they have money.

I have a possible solution. You could still show off that you have money buying products that don’t get style obsolescence. I am thinking in Ray Ban sunglasses, Rolex, and suits. Maybe… Mercedes Benz? Did you notice most brands get a new model every 3 years, and Mercedes every 10 years? Maybe that is why they are more expensive…

I thought of another kind of obsolescence, for cars, that is a real problem: Depreciation. A lot of people change their cars before they get too old and they are worth nothing. Now I’m thinking in a magazine that has the prices of every new car, and suggests prices for used cars. It’s that easy to control the prices of the used cars! (but if the price goes too down, people wouldn’t want to buy the car new, and instead, will look for it used).

Oh, in my case, I always try to buy used things in good condition, specially electronics. Its really hard to break a computer by normal use.

ok… your question in itself highlight the fault in what i was saying and it was not a correct statement on my part.

But what i really meant was that if government imposes too rigid a standard it will become a lot HARDER for companies to focus on improving their products/services and giving them less time and resources to focus on coming up with new market innovations. In some industries i think government definitely has to interfere or companies will not care about morals and only focus on profits but in other markets there is too much regulations/too high standards, and it ruins it for the consumers. I am not one of those black/white types who think EVERYTHING should be deregulated or vice versa that government SHOULD regulate everything… it is so much more complicated than that… (but it is my experience that a lot of people think in those terms)…

In the case of that Milton Friedman video I think Milton is more right than the young man asking the question because even if people think it is immoral to put a price tag on lives that is what must be done for business to be done in the best way…it is just difficult to put a fitting price tag backed by solid reasoning.

Shaun is totally right about modern advertising making women overly obsessed with their looks to the point of making them dumber and devaluing their intellect. I don’t think the problem is solely men, I think the problem is the way women carry themselves. Everyone wants to be Kim Kardashian and walk around like a bimbo and then complain when men treat them like slag. But men are only going to treat them as such because of the way she presents herself. When a woman carries herself with intelligence and dignity then she will (tend to) command respect.

Insightful comment

Great tip Ludvig! Thoughts:
1. I love your idea of alternating between creative days and implementation days. I veer more to the creative side and find I have to 'mono-focus' to get boring stuff done. I can't switch well between the two types of work in the same day.
An easy to remember summary of this principle:
Creative days – brainstorm solo, and go with the flow
All other days – exe [...]